Handley Page Halifax.

[FZ6]

The Handley Page Halifax has not been as well kitted as it's more famous brother the Lancaster over the years.

The errors in the new Revell kit have upset a lot of people, myself included. Without going into these errors which have been discussed at length elsewhere I was wondering why people are so passionate about this aircraft?

For me I enjoyed building the Matchbox kit as a school boy and it's grown on me from there. Also reading the history of the aircraft and it's varied career gives plenty of scope for modelling and makes for interesting reading.

[DaveCS]

For me, it's all about building something that was used by the RCAF during WWII. That and, of course, nostalgia as I too built both the Matchbox and Airfix kits as a kid.

Cheers,

Dave

[Aeronut]

If I have a modelling theme is British Airborne Forces, so whilst the Lancaster was cleared for parachuting and glider towing it was never used as such in service whereas the Halifax was. Therefore I will build the new Revell kit if only because its got the right main undercarriage legs and a glider tow hitch on the sprue.

[GrzeM]

Halifaxes (and Liberators) have been used to drop supplies and special operation officers for my country, Poland. Also during the tragic Warsaw Uprising. This service was extremely dangerous, as the way was to long to be completed during night. Death toll was huge. But they were still flying, not only the Poles, also British, South African and other brave aviators.

[Seahawk]

For me it's, correction, it would have been about doing something in a very small way to correct modern distortions of history, which celebrate the Lancaster to the exclusion of all else (cf Bomber Boys last Sunday). Those who fought and died in Stirlings and Halifaxes, let alone the earlier Hampdens, Whitleys and Wellingtons, deserve to be remembered just as much as the Lancaster crews, not that I wish in any way to detract from their bravery.

And there were those, eg Group Captain Tom Sawyer in Only Fools and Bloody Fools Fly At Night, who reckoned that the Halifax III was as good as. if not better than, the Lancaster, especially in thing that mattered to the crews like survival rates.

[Greenshirt]

After I was allowed to crawl around inside a restored Lancaster while visiting Australia 20+ years ago, I fell in love with the heavies in general. 8-10 men fighting very hard to survive in a "weapon system" that seemed to barely achieve it's objectives. After I got much smarter I realized the Halifax was to the RAF as the B-24 was to the USAAF -- an unsung hero that was quite versatile and nearly more widely used than their more famous brethren. As an American I like an underdog story and eventually I fell in love with the lines of Halifax. I spent most of my day at Hendon last year looking over their Halifax; the Lanc got a single quick photo.

Of course, I've more kits of the Lancaster (6 - closing sale on Hasegawa kits a few years ago at my LHS) than the Halifax (3), and I was hoping Revell would change that...

Tim

[Test Graham]

Personally, my first employment was at Handley Page: beyond that there is the shortage of kits of what was a very important aircraft. I can add to Seahawk's distortions the influence of a number of books about life on Halifaxes that featured Lancasters on the cover artwork! And the misidentification of round-wingtipped Halifaxes in aerial photographs.

However, I don't think Halifax enthusiasts are more passionate than Lancaster or Spitfire enthusiasts. The recent flood has had more to do with the poor quality of the new model, and the large number of opportunities for saying something about putting things right. There was a lot less to be said about the Revell or Hasegawa Lancasters - but quite enough electronic ink was spent there.

I have to add, however, that the Halifax really was inferior to the Lancaster, not least in that most important of parameters for any bomber, payload/range. The Lancaster could fly further (and higher) with more bombs, and could more easily carry the larger weapons. The reasons for this stem from the slightly earlier design and the different constraints/relaxations of the requirements. It had a wider fuselage because BP turrets were wider than Frazer Nash ones (I must check this - they certainly were bulkier and draggier); the engines were mounted higher on the wing because it was not realised that this produced more drag; it had a slightly shorter wing; the cylindrical radiators produced more drag than the later Morris Block ones; the bombbay was not required to carry two torpedoes but was sized (as other RAF bombers before it) around the narrow 2000lb SAP bomb (and where are the models of this?). HP projects to get around these matters were either not approved on the grounds of affecting production, or superseded by the Mk.III. The Halifax also had the rudder stall problem - but this can be overstressed. The early Lancaster had a habit of shedding its wings.....

There is more that can be said, and this can be found in the better books. But even the best of Halifaxes just wasn't quite as good as the best of the competition. As a consolation, it far exceeded the awful Stirling.

[gingerbob]

... I was wondering why people are so passionate about this aircraft?

Not meaning to kick the hornet's nest or anything, but my own personal answer is: I'm not. I've done a bit of work trying to understand its evolution, so it isn't as if I shun it entirely, but it is rather like the B-24 vs. the B-17 (or P-47 vs. P-51, or...) to me- sure, it was there doing its part, and has some advantages in some ways over the competition, but it just doesn't stir me in the same way.

Now, having said that, one day I'll be looking at a book about, say, Luftwaffe night defenses, and that'll raise some question in my mind, and I'll be off on a several week long binge of studying up on the beast! And I'd still like to have some documentation and firm chronology about all the marks and sub-marks and series and so on, but that's more in the pursuit of understanding nomenclature than it is for the Halifax itself.

Anyway, everybody knows that the Whitley was the real war-winner!

bob

p.s. I wrote my reply before reading the others. Interesting that two other people at least also make the B-24 analogy.

p.p.s. One other phenomenon that I have just thought of: perhaps it is a mis-perception on my part, but while there are, as usual, some folks rolling up their sleeves to deal with the inadequacies, as they see them, in the kits, there seems not to be the common backlash of "Oh please, you can see that it's meant to be a Halifax- you should be grateful they condescended to offer you a kit." Perhaps those types have mostly just said "A Halifax?" and shrugged and moved on, while those who actually care... care!

Edited February 8, 2012 by gingerbob

[lancfan]

The attraction for me is that it is a local product, Samlesbury is 20 miles from my home. Other than that I want to build a series of RAF heavy bombers and the shortcomings of the Airfix and old MB/revell kits have always put the Halifax to the back of the queue. when Revell released their new Lancaster I was over the moon, true it had a couple of mimor faults but it was a vast improvement over the other available kits. The news of the Halifax was most welcome but after seeing the horrendous job they have made of it given that there are two in britain and one other in Canada that are available for reference I was horrified, minor niggles are one thing but glaring faults of this magnitude are unforgivable. I can only hope that Airfix re-tool their Halifax and make a proper job of it.

David.

[AWFK10]

For me, it's the local connection. When I was younger (and fitter) and lived in Harrogate, I often used to cycle past RAF Marston Moor, once occupied by 1652 HCU's Halifaxes. Now, I live on the site of the main Halifax repair depot at Rawcliffe, which is also the place where a large part of the fleet was scrapped postwar. Rufforth, Linton on Ouse, East Moor and Elvington are all within reasonably easy striking distance. At the moment, I'm building a Mk V from 1663 HCU at Rufforth, from a photo in "Halifax at War". Using the Matchbox kit......

[woody37]

For me, I have no preference over the Lanc, I love the history behind Bomber Command and the Halifax was a key part of that force. Material covering the Halifax is far more illusive than the Lanc despite it's vast and varied operationsl career, so it carries a certain mystique around that makes unearthing info about it fascinating. How I would love to see both a Merlin and Hercules Halibag doing the airshow circuit

[miduppergunner]

Of course overall the Lancaster was the better of the two. It had the advantage of following the Halifax. Certainly so far as the people to whom I have spoken, who flew in the Halifax, it seemed a bit more sturdy and easier to vacate in a hurry. This is supported by statistics. It was perhaps a bit more versatile than the Lancaster but of course Harris was rather covetous of them (Lancasters) so perhaps they never got a chance to prove their worth even more so.

Otherwise I think it is simply like the Spitfire and the Hurricane - just a little harmless bias?

The Stirling also had its fans too however.

And Harris was not always right - he did condemn the Mosquito too initially!

Oh - I am a greater fan of the Halifax than the Lancaster incidentally - and rather admire the Wellington! The Lancaster has enough admirers without me!

[MilneBay]

Personally for me it is not a question of preference for one type over another. It is the recognition that despite its faults, and in the Merlin engined variety these were legion it is simply that it is an important aircraft both for its role in the WW2 bomber offensive and in the numbers produced.

Accordingly it warrants a reasonably accurate kit - we get kits of German aircraft like the He177 done well and that was a truly second rate and dangerous aircraft and we get accurate kits of some quite minor Axis stuff, often multiples; we have reasonably accurate kits of a host of US post-war naval aircraft some of which were pretty much highly forgettable, but for a Halifax which had a fine war record in many roles, the only kits available have been the ancient Airfix, the less than stellar Matchbox and now this passing resemblance from Revell.

When it was announced I was pleased that it was to be kitted to modern standards - the result has been a disappointment, especially, although I am used to wrestling many complex limited run kits into shape, because I was looking forward to a straight forward build. If I wasn't already a grumpy sweetheart this kit would have made me one.

[tonyot]

Like most Brits I like to support the underdog or the one that gets on quietly with the job whilst others steal the limelight and in the same way that the Hurricane is my favourite fighter, the Halibag is my favourite bomber, especially as it was so capable in a multitude of different roles, including paradropping which is so very close to my heart. Plus I`m a Blackburn lad by birth and many were built by English Electric at nearby Salmesbury.

By all accounts the later Hercules engined Halifax`s were just as good, if not better than the Lanc plus its a much better looking aircraft than the Lanc,...well in my view at least,...not the earlier variants you understand,...which were quite ugly really, but the late Hercules engined variants with the longer wings.

Didn`t the dainty Lancaster have its rear fuselage twisted whilst trying to tow a Hamilcar glider in trials whilst even the Merlin engined Halibag managed manfully along.

Cheers

Tony O

[Deacon]

Like miduppergunner, there are enough supporters of the Lanc for me to be biased to the Halifax.

But, the first Brit bomber I have made since picking up the hobby again in 2008, is the Stirling and I have to stay it has pride of place on my shelves.

We feel the Halifax is sold short, just give a thought to the Stirling!

Deacon

[johnd]

Like most Brits I like to support the underdog or the one that gets on quietly with the job whilst others steal the limelight

Almost word for word what I was about to write!

[pigsty]

Are you sure it's devotion to the Halifax that you're seeing? To me the bulk of criticism of the kit has come from the relief that an under-represented type has finally been produced, ruined by the impression that a bad job has been made of it when a good job could easily have been done. I don't doubt some are genuine fans of the Halifax and would happily put it ahead of the Lancaster, but there must be sizable numbers of people for whom the aim is to have all three RAF heavies done properly (me), or to have all RAF aircraft done properly, or to have all Handley Page aircraft done properly, or even just to have lots of models that start with an H. For any of these it's not so much "I love the Halifax more than anything", it's "I need the Halifax for this little lot to be complete".

[Iain Ogilvie]

My grandfather (mother's side) was on 640 Sqn @ Leconfield - Halifax IIIs.

He always maintained it was a more versatile aeroplane than the Lanc (but I'm sure most squadrons would favour their own a/c).

I have a couple of ID Vacs - maybe one day...

Iain

[Troy Smith]

He always maintained it was a more versatile aeroplane than the Lanc (but I'm sure most squadrons would favour their own a/c).

There is a book on the Halifax 'Second to None' which is quite passionate about the Halifax, as might be gathered by the title. One main point the author makes is the Halifax fulfilled it's specification much closely than the Lanc, which was a specialised bomb carrier, but was not as good a match the Air Min specification.

As it pointed out Harris jelously guarded the Lanc, so it hard to know how well it would have worked in other roles, but the Halifax was designed to things the Lanc wasn't, tropical use springs to mind, some transport capacity IIRC.., for which it was used. The books not to hand but it's goes on about this at length.

And like the B-24 it was used in many more varied roles during the war as well.

T

[Stuart Wilson]

I probably prefer the Lanc but the dissapointment about the Revell kit which I bought and which now sits unfinished in the stash is that there is still no decent model of such an important type. If I want a JU-290, a BV-222 or a 1946 Luftwaffe wet dream I can get one but there's still no decent kit of a plane 6000 examples of which fought in WWII.

Now I like the Ju-290 but surely the Halifax is more important. Also the recent Revell Ju-88 is a lovely kit so I had high hopes for the Hali.

Of course it leaves room for Airfix to do a B.III to the standard of their Swordfish. Then a Stirling, a Hampden, a Beaufighter, a Blenheim................

Stuart

[General Jumbo]

Interesting rading all your views. I like the Lan and the Halifax but I must say that the Halifax (particularly the BIII with its perspex nose) looked really sleek and a bit ahead of its time. A good looking aircraft if not as capable as the Lanc.

[Kevin Callahan]

An interesting topic. Personally, my approach is that the Halifax works into one of my subthemes of WW2 heavy bombers. I've built a Lanc, Stirling, B-29, B-17, B-24, will shortly be starting the Halifax, then it is on to Pe-8, Me-264, Piaggio P-108, Rita, B-32...

[Giorgio N]

Hmmmm.... not sure I'm a Halifax fan, and I admit of knowing relatively little about it. IMHO it was inferior to the Lancaster, but I'm one of those that rate the Lanc as the best bomber of the war. Still the Halifax was a very important aircraft and it deserves a good kit of it. I'm very disappointed that Revell made such mistakes on their recent kit of the type, but again seeing these inaccuracies in the 21st century with the wealth of documentation available always disappoints me. Personally I'm grateful to those modellers here who know and love the subject and have found all the various inaccuracies and are trying to address them.

I have to say that there are other important WW2 aircrafts of which we have yet to see a good accurate model and that many kits that are often higly rated would not pass a scrutiny similar to that given to the revell halifax.

Not sure I'll buy this kit now, I might just rebuild the matchbox one I have somewhere disassembled in the stash. However if I had no Halifax kit at all, I'd probably buy the revell one instead of the old matchbox: none is perfect anyway, but the newer one at least is more detailed.

[Test Graham]

There's certainly a lot to be said in favour of the Revell Halifax, as long as you look away from the engine nacelles. The fuselage is not without its shortcomings, but nothing like as bad as the Matchbox's. Either easy to fix, or at least better than its predecessors. Recent postings have tended to emphasize its problems because people are trying different ways of getting around these, and it always takes longer to describe/discuss something that is wrong than just say "spot on" when it is accurate, finely tooled and fits together. 2 out of 3 for Revell.

Whereas you are right that many models wouldn't pass a scrutiny as close as that given to the Halifax, I'm equally sure that these subjects have their enthusiasts who are as ready to provide just that. Spitfires, Hurricanes, anyone? Have you seen some of the discussions on the Academy B-24s? Rear fuselage? Engines? Variation between different variants and sub-variants? It has to be said that none of the available three Lancasters in 1/72, despite their own distinctive drawbacks, have anything like the number of flaws seen on this new kit. Had there been, the outcry would have made this discussion appear very small beer!

[Chuck1945]

Back in the late 80s I built the Contrail Manchester using landing gear and props from the original Airfix Lanc. A year or so later, when Academy/Minicraft first released the Ventura as a PV-3, I made my own vac canopy and added Aeroclub's BP turret to make a RAF Ventura. Since I seemed to be on a roll, I then started a Matchbox Halifax with the intent to use a couple more of the Aeroclub turrets. At the time I was totally unaware of the fuselage issues (lack of references) and differences in radiator and undercarriage between Merlin versions. The effort bogged down attempting to fill the many trenches and the project eventually died.

I think for me the interest in the Halifax was originally the 'underdog' appeal, and I looked forward to the Revell kit when it was first announced as an opportunity to again attempt a Halifax, but this time starting with much better plastic. The early 'in-box' impressions were all favorable so as soon as it appeared in Hannant's lists I ordered one as Christmas present for myself. I am not so dedicated to the type that I will put myself through what the builders on the two threads have done, but if I actually do start this, I will use the announced Freightdog parts to at least improve the look somewhat - and may eventually attempt the Airfix wings on a Revell fuselage (assuming a Revell Hercules engine version isn't forthcoming.

In the meantime, I do have several Lancaster kits still awaiting if the Bomber Command urge strikes again ...